[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"This is impossible. Someone, somewhere, will always have a bomb or a gun and an intent to use it."

The ones we eradicate won't.

I think a lot of people would rather do nothing than attempt something that's difficult, but worthwhile.

I hear the same thing said about illegal immigrants..."It's impossible to deport them all."

Well, that may be true, but I think it's possible to deport a majority of them - which is better than none.

How? This isn't a solution if it doesn't have a viable methodology. I'd like to end world hunger. Is that a solution?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sek929

IMO they want their culture to stay the same way it's been for millenia, the only way these people will accept democracy is from within.

Just for sh1ts and giggles why don't we stat from zero right now, hmm? Let's do a little survey (as in LAND survey) and assume that ALL the land that is dominated by Islam is all the land the Islamic jihadists want. That only and no more.

That's right. Let's assume there is no global domination theory at work. That would mean there should be no more wars or violence dealing with the jihadists suddenly saying they are OWED a certain territory or that a border is being contested or that a certain government's forces are fighting Islamic forces anywhere. OK?

If there is no global expansionist theory at work here then there will be no more news reports of Islamic terrorism or combat going on anywhere.

Now, let's go on as we were and we'll just keep an eye on this NON global expansion as it DOESN'T develop.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ink

You're implying that my solution would have been worse than the Iraq solution. I know that we cannot go back in time and run both situations to find the optimal one, but I do disagree with that premise. By invading Iraq (sorry if you feel that this is "bashing" Bush) we put off implementing the solution to the real problem, which is: The United States is vulnerable to foriegn countries for the petroleum that we must import everyday. We can get into specifics about why signing Kyoto in the early 90's would have helped, why a luxury tax on SUV's would have helped (with the monies going to power sources that the USA can produce itself) and such, but in my experience conservatives also see this as "Bush bashing".

In short: Invading Iraq was worse than investing in energy independence. I'm not claiming that it would have solved all terrorist problems, but only that it would have been better. The longer we put it off, the more vulnerable our security will be in the future to the whims of madmen in Iran and other such places.

Independence = Security

Actually, yes it borders on bashing because it does not address the thread topic. What you seem unable to contain yourself from doing is crying over spilled milk.

Why do so many bashers want to continually go back in time?

If you can invent a time travel machine which will whisk all of us back to the time right after 9/11 so we can make those decisions all over again, then fine. Get on with it and your observations will be quite useful then. But until then your comments contribute LITTLE to what might be done TOMORROW to stop terrorism.

What's more, you fail to account for all of the important factors the Administration had to deal with.

You can't even identify those factors.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

No, no, no, a MAN would realise that that is only their opening hand, and it also plays to their own audience.

IRA did the same thing, but have we got a united Ireland now, or are their political representatives sitting in Westminster and a (currently stalled) NI parliament, like good little statesmen?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

Me? Well, I'm a few hundred miles away, so it's not affecting me.

Now, are you laughing at the irony of increasing recruitment for Hezbollah, the rise of Iran's influence in the region, Israeli's being wounded or dead kids in Lebanon? I'm unclear on that. Clue me in on the joke, mojoman.

I'm laughing at the fact that you want to judge the matter of Lebanon right now instead of waiting a bit to see what happens in the long run. It's just 'too soon' to judge.

Too soon.

That's a term I'm sure you've heard before, right?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

An Apollo program to fight global warming which has the fringe benefit of ridding us of our addiciton to oil.

First, we pull all subsidies from the oil industry and shift them into firms developing green technology.

We earmark billions of dollars toward building a mass transit system, nation-wide, based on fuel cells. The government, then, will be creating the backbone for a Hydrogen economy which will ease consumer migration. We base this not on Hydrogen from fossil fuels, but on sustainable sources. Using wind, hydro and solar power to extract hydrogen from water. Perhaps we could even resurrect OTEC. We push for the creation of hydrogen plants of all sizes, giving tax breaks and other incentives to companies installing such plants.

We begin to phase in punishing sin taxes on automobiles for every non-fuel cell vehicle they produce.

We mandate that all new residential construction in the country conform to certain standards--green communities which encourage less vehicular travel, more walking and bicycling.

Push the WTO and other world bodies to enact environmental standards to force other Developed economies to shift to clean technology and sell technology grants to developing economies like China and India so they can take a more responsible development route than we did.

Wait, let me anticipate the objections: That would cost a fortune! The technology doesn't exit yet!

The technology exists, but we lack the economy of scale and the technical knowledge to apply it en masse. But when Kennedy launched the Apollo program, we didn't know what we'd need to reach the moon either.

As to the cost, industry swore up and down that the Clean Air Act would bankrupt the country, but instead it created new industries. It created a muliplier effect in the economy.

We face a tremendous challenge. It demands of us will and vision--not the short-sighted leadership we have been offered so far.

The problem with ventures envisioned as you so marvelously do here is that you presuppose certain prerequisites which are not certain.

You say, "First, we pull all subsidies from the oil industry and shift them into firms developing green technology." Well, what are the oil companies going to do in response to this? You suppose there would be no response. That reminds me of the criticism that followed the supposition that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and kisses.

And these billions you'd earmark to develop an alternative would come from where, exactly?

Are you with Al Gore in wanting to increase the price of gasoline? Take a look around at what has happened, and is still happening with gas prices where they now are. Whats a few more tax pennies added to each gallon?

Or would you increase other taxes? Residential taxes? Industrial taxes? Oh, I just saw your suggestion re: the sin-tax on dino-cars.

But I agree the money should be raised and devoted to developing an energy alternative. The question is how? And how much? And to be devoted to what alternative to oil? And who is best to fund this development? Government or private industry?

You speak of Hydrogen as though it is THE viable option and unless I'm very behind the times Hydrogen has yet to prove itself more than an energy 'storage' medium.

Now all we need do is get all this up and running in the next 12 months.

By the way, thanks for answering my request to supply the details. However this is a thread devoted to the idea of suggestions to stop terrorism. Any more pursuit of this idea deserves it's own thread. One I would find stimulating and believe would be well populated.

My closing thought re: your post is that the process of weaning our economy and lifestyles from oil is like building a new airplane while in flight. It probably can be done but it is imperative that the plane you are on remain flying in the whole process.

Also, our current industries, economy, and products were not invented overnight. They happened over years, decades and in some cases centuries. Switching everything over to a non-oil alternative won't happen in time to help resolve Iraq. But that isn't to say it shouldn't be started, as I believe it already has.

And we should all recognize there are SOME thing for which oil or fossil fuels can not be replaced. All of the products we use which contain ANY kind of plastic came from oil. All of the agricultural abundance we enjoy in the US comes from pesticides which reduce the yields lost to pests and fertilizers which increase our yields over those common in most third world farms, not to mention the advanced irrigation techniques which are permitted by cheap energy.

Great ideas which need to be pursued but they can't happen quickly enough to help us in Iraq.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

You're right, the Palestinians have derailed the peace process. I can't believe they're unwilling to accept a peace proposal that leaves them wholly dependent on Israel for their water. Damn monsters, when will they accept their subservient posiiton to their betters? This totally justifies the indiscriminate use of violence by the IDF.

Face it, mojo, both sides are so deep in blood and so far past the line of basic human decency that there's no room left to favor one side or the other. We--you, me, the US, the EU, the UN, everyone on Earth--should just be pushing for them to get over their history, get past what their dellusions tell them God wants for them, and just learn to live in peace.

While I recognize your ability to see this situation more clearly than most, the fact remains that the Palestinians are not interested in a negotiated solution.

Here is an excerpt from the Covenant of Hamas 18 August 1988.

HAMAS MAIN GOAL IS THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND THE CREATION OF AN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IN ITS PLACE.

(FROM THE HAMAS COVENANT)

Article 6
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement whose allegiance is to Allah and whose way of life is Islam."

Article 31
It is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other UNDER THE WING OF ISLAM.

THE PEACE PROCESS

Preface:
Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it...

Article 13:
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through JIHAD...
Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a WASTE OF TIME and vain endeavors.

OBJECTION TO ZIONISM OR THE OBJECTION TO THE EXISTENCE OF JEWS

Article 7:

"...the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realization of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

So, if you are Israel and only want to live in peace and let the Palestinians live in peace, what do you do when these people continually attack you?

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through JIHAD...
Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a WASTE OF TIME and vain endeavors.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Do a word search for "diplomacy", the first instance of this is in your post. Where are you getting this from? Are you a robot?

This is not a religious war, but a war justified by religious beliefs. There is an important difference here. Like another poster said, how can we win this war if our understanding of our enemy is as flimsey as yours?

No offense, but I would match his understanding of most everything (except trumpeting) to yours, most any day.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Just to ward off the inevitable "what are YOUR ideas" directed at me, I'll respond by asking what are yours? I'll follow by pointing out that I tried sharing some of my ideas in another recent thread, and this went nowhere.

The problem is that the most vocal individuals of this thread are not looking for a genuine exchange of ideas. There is absolutely nothing I could say that would make them say "hey, good ideas besson3c" unless they were pretty much exactly the same as theirs.

So, this thread sucks.

besson3c, you are out of your depth. No offense.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So, you admit that you have no solution. Fair enough....you aren't alone.

My solution is to eradicate Islamic fundamentalism worldwide - by force, if necessary - in order to preserve our freedom for future generations.

This would represent a SIGNIFICANT culling of the human herd. A bloodbath of the likes only envisioned in sci-fi novels or the Bible. I could see where the only determination of who wouldn't die would be almost a matter of luck. Neither religion, nor geography, nor personal armament, nor race or nationality, nor location would dependably save you. We would completely replace all of our current concerns with all different ones. Like a vacation of sorts.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

We should secure our borders - by force, if necessary.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

We should take steps to significantly reduce our dependance on foreign oil - by building more nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

Agreed but building more nuclear plants will take time.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

We should, at all costs, eliminate the possibility of any more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Even at the risk of a worldwide cataclysm?

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think Dubya is doing a fair job on recognizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalists terrorists. He's doing a bad job at the other stuff I mentioned.

Agreed.

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Sure enough...."diplomacy". Which is another word for "compromise".

Is compromise a dirty word in black and white land then spliffpappy?

[belfast-biker]

What are you talking about,mojoman?? Seriously?






I asked: "Anyhow, how's that 'shelling Hezbollah into submission' been working for ya?"

You replied, child-like: "Hahaha! Hows it workin for YOU?"

Bizarre reply, so I answered with a question: "Me? Well, I'm a few hundred miles away, so it's not affecting me. Now, are you laughing at the irony of increasing recruitment for Hezbollah, the rise of Iran's influence in the region, Israeli's being wounded or dead kids in Lebanon? I'm unclear on that. Clue me in on the joke, mojoman."

Your reply:"I'm laughing at the fact that you want to judge the matter of Lebanon right now instead of waiting a bit to see what happens in the long run. It's just 'too soon' to judge. Too soon. That's a term I'm sure you've heard before, right? "





You appear to have gone off the rails of reality. Is everything OK?

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by mojo2

besson3c, you are out of your depth. No offense.

And you're off your meds again.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The problem with ventures envisioned as you so marvelously do here is that you presuppose certain prerequisites which are not certain.

You say, "First, we pull all subsidies from the oil industry and shift them into firms developing green technology." Well, what are the oil companies going to do in response to this? You suppose there would be no response. That reminds me of the criticism that followed the supposition that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and kisses.

And these billions you'd earmark to develop an alternative would come from where, exactly?

Are you with Al Gore in wanting to increase the price of gasoline? Take a look around at what has happened, and is still happening with gas prices where they now are. Whats a few more tax pennies added to each gallon?

Or would you increase other taxes? Residential taxes? Industrial taxes? Oh, I just saw your suggestion re: the sin-tax on dino-cars.

But I agree the money should be raised and devoted to developing an energy alternative. The question is how? And how much? And to be devoted to what alternative to oil? And who is best to fund this development? Government or private industry?

You speak of Hydrogen as though it is THE viable option and unless I'm very behind the times Hydrogen has yet to prove itself more than an energy 'storage' medium.

Now all we need do is get all this up and running in the next 12 months.

By the way, thanks for answering my request to supply the details. However this is a thread devoted to the idea of suggestions to stop terrorism. Any more pursuit of this idea deserves it's own thread. One I would find stimulating and believe would be well populated.

My closing thought re: your post is that the process of weaning our economy and lifestyles from oil is like building a new airplane while in flight. It probably can be done but it is imperative that the plane you are on remain flying in the whole process.

Also, our current industries, economy, and products were not invented overnight. They happened over years, decades and in some cases centuries. Switching everything over to a non-oil alternative won't happen in time to help resolve Iraq. But that isn't to say it shouldn't be started, as I believe it already has.

And we should all recognize there are SOME thing for which oil or fossil fuels can not be replaced. All of the products we use which contain ANY kind of plastic came from oil. All of the agricultural abundance we enjoy in the US comes from pesticides which reduce the yields lost to pests and fertilizers which increase our yields over those common in most third world farms, not to mention the advanced irrigation techniques which are permitted by cheap energy.

Great ideas which need to be pursued but they can't happen quickly enough to help us in Iraq.

It's rather laughable for someone who has, from what I've seen, endorsed the president's policies to question where money might come from to pay for a crucial policy goal that will both increase our security and protect our progeny into the next century. How much has Iraq cost us again?

And yes, gas prices must continue to rise. It's the only way we'll get off oil.

I'll get to starting that thread you mentioned later. Adios.

[besson3c]

A moment of zen:



http://netmusician.org/~joe/mojo.jpg


(there was one more that wouldn't fit into my screenshot

EDIT: image size violation.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

A moment of zen:



http://netmusician.org/~joe/mojo.jpg


(there was one more that wouldn't fit into my screenshot

That's okay. You can print ALL of them out and plaster them on your wall in the little mojo2shrine™ you've erected in the 'special' room of your abode.

And I can imagine you practicing your horn while you visit the mojoshrine.™ My request?

Play Misty for me.

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That's okay. You can print ALL of them out and plaster them on your wall in the little mojo2shrine™ you've erected in the 'special' room of your abode.

And I can imagine you practicing your horn while you visit the mojoshrine.™ My request?

Play Misty for me.

A horn? What?

I have to smile, snigger and smirk at some of the comebacks I see from on other political forums I'm in. Some of them are genuinely funny/sarcastic/cutting/smart.


Mojo, yours are just..... weird. It's like you're in a different thread to the rest of us. I guess you're aiming for clever, but honestly, they need some* work.








* OK, a lot of work.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by belfast-biker

Mojo, yours are just..... weird. It's like you're in a different thread to the rest of us. I guess you're aiming for clever, but honestly, they need some* work.

Just wait until he starts replying by posting lyrics from Kenny Rogers or some other old country singer like that.

Yeap.

greg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by mojo2

While I recognize your ability to see this situation more clearly than most, the fact remains that the Palestinians are not interested in a negotiated solution.

Here is an excerpt from the Covenant of Hamas 18 August 1988.



So, if you are Israel and only want to live in peace and let the Palestinians live in peace, what do you do when these people continually attack you?

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through JIHAD...
Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a WASTE OF TIME and vain endeavors.

Surely the current course isn't getting them anywhere. Violence begetting violence, ad infinitum.

[Dork.]

I finally got around to reading all of this. It's pretty entertaining, and I have put up a mojo2shrine™ in a little corner of my abode, just for you.

Here's my contribution: What is the eventual goal of our War On Terror? It has nothing to do with eradicating anything, it has to do with making ourselves, both as Americans and as citizens of the World, more secure in our daily lives. The entity we are fighting puts killing us at a higher value than preserving their own lives, and their ideaology is contagious and spreads wherever conditions are right. We may have a technological advantage, but they have an advantage both in sheer numbers and in their willingness to give up their lives for their cause.

Simply eradicating all the ones we can find will never work, since there will always be ones we can't find. And war actively generates the conditions under which this ideaology will spread. Waging war on this group guarantees that their numbers will expand, because more and more people will be willing to sactifice themselves and their children's future against percieved "aggression".

The answer, IMHO, is to eliminate the conditions under which this ideaology spreads. This may require armed conflict, as in Afghanistan, but also requires dialogue and an honest assessment of our support for various governments in the region, who are actively sowing this ideaology while taking our oil money. The comparison to Northern Ireland is apt, I think: From the founding of the Irish State until 1999, Article 2 of the Irish Constitution simply read:

The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Article 3 recognized that there was a partition, but until the island was made whole the laws passed by the government would only apply in the South. There was a recognition of a partition, but only a temporary one, and it was Official Irish Policy that the North was rightfully part of it's territorial bitrhright.

I imagine that a UK citizen living in Northern Ireland must have been bothered by that plain statement on the part of the Irish government. And there were likely many people who felt it was pointless to negotiate with them since their stance to never compromise was written into their constitution. But negotiations eventually happened, compromise was achieved, and aside from all the bloviating that polititians always do I think ordinary people on both sides think the compromise was worth it.

Discussions with the current group of rabble-rousers are a little more difficult, because of their penchant to value killing others over their own lives, which even the IRA was sensible enough to try and avoid. But just as there were people on both sides in Ireland and the UK who were willing to open discussions even though Official Positions made that untenable, there will be people open to negotiating in Hamas and Hezbollah and Israel and the US even though all parties Official Positions are mutually exclusive.

A good compromise is one that neither side likes but both sides live with because the alternative is worse. So the fact that mojo2 and Spliffdaddy don't like compromise is proof that maybe there's something to the idea.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dork.

... and their ideaology is contagious and spreads wherever conditions are right. )

Ay, there's the rub...wherever conditions are right. A Mid-east torn by war is one that will be continually galvanized is one where conditions will always be right for these sorts of ideologues to recruit.

What we need is to change the conditions in the Middle East...how? Easy, just let what was already happening before 9/11 happen. Bin Laden is desperate because he sees that he and his were already losing the culture war as Western culture--our open, consumer lifestyle with jeans, movies, music, etc--was eating away at the values upon which his causes are based.

By galvanizing the Arab and Muslim world against us, we've played right into his hands.

Treat terrorism like the global law enforcement issue it is, and have faith that in the "culture war" the values of freedom will prevail on their own. They cannot be advanced at the point of a bayonet.

[belfast-biker]

Originally Posted by Dork.

The entity we are fighting puts killing us at a higher value than preserving their own lives

And in terms of killing us, even taking the twin towers, London and Madrid attacks into consideration, terrorism is a drop in the ocean compared to needless poverty, curable disease, global inequality, gun crime, smoking and probably even bedroom accidents that occur while trying to put your trousers on.

Why do we spend so much time money and effort on the War on Terror? How much are we spending on the War on Smoking?

[ink]

Originally Posted by Helmling

An Apollo program to fight global warming which has the fringe benefit of ridding us of our addiciton to oil.

And to do that we need real leadership, on the par with JFK. (EDIT: I would also add Ronald Reagan's administration here, for various reasons that probably belong in another thread.)

Remember this at election time; perhaps we can beat back the frightened zealots and bring science back to America.

China is building genreation 4 nuclear reactors.

France and Japan are building the first net-positive fusion reactor.

Norway and Ireland/UK are building innovative tidal and geothermal generators.

The USA is bombing Iraq, and quibbling over the ANWR.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My solution is to eradicate Islamic fundamentalism worldwide - by force, if necessary - in order to preserve our freedom for future generations.

We should secure our borders - by force, if necessary.

We should take steps to significantly reduce our dependance on foreign oil - by building more nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

We should, at all costs, eliminate the possibility of any more nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I think Dubya is doing a fair job on recognizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalists terrorists. He's doing a bad job at the other stuff I mentioned.

#1 is impossible (see the crusades and countless other examples)
#2 is impossible (see East/West Germany)
#3 is not only possible, but the path is laid out before us
#4 is impossible

Dubya has done a horrible job with #2, #3 and #4. Seeing that #2 and #4 are hopless, I can give him that...

This leaves #3, which is energy independence.

[ink]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Actually, yes it borders on bashing because it does not address the thread topic. What you seem unable to contain yourself from doing is crying over spilled milk.

Why do so many bashers want to continually go back in time?

If you can invent a time travel machine which will whisk all of us back to the time right after 9/11 so we can make those decisions all over again, then fine. Get on with it and your observations will be quite useful then. But until then your comments contribute LITTLE to what might be done TOMORROW to stop terrorism.

What's more, you fail to account for all of the important factors the Administration had to deal with.

You can't even identify those factors.

Well, Abe, you seem to be infatuated with the notion that the only reasonable response to 9/11 was to bomb Iraq. Any time anyone even THINKS about questioning that decision, you get your Bush Bashing rubber stamp out to quash the notion. At best, you seem to ask for suggestions of how to proceed, but in reality you (and your ilk) pigeon-hole those that disagree with you into this nebulous "Bush Basher" category; those hoplessly narcissistic fools that imagine a better future for America apart from the "world's lone superpower".

Good luck with your war. It is the only solution in your mind, right?

It's been great, so far, hasn't it?

I mean, it's the only solution.

I look forward to more pretend-questions from you about the state of things.

[Spliffdaddy]

Page 4 and no solutions from the liberals - but a lot of Bush-bashing.

Typical of what we've come to expect.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Page 4 and no solutions from the liberals - but a lot of Bush-bashing.

Typical of what we've come to expect.

Man, you really need to learn some tunes. You sound tired and old.

[Spliffdaddy]

And you never offered any solutions - only criticism.

[Spliffdaddy]

here's your chance to prove me wrong.

I won't hold my breath, though, since I'm rarely wrong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

And you never offered any solutions - only criticism.

Try reading the thread (which references your other thread, I believe, where I did offer some of my ideas), and then try being interested in genuine conversation.

[Spliffdaddy]

ok, hang on a minute. Let me see if I can find where you posted your solution.

[Spliffdaddy]

I give up. Can't find the thread where you stated your solution to terrorism.

Give me a clue. Do you remember the thread title or who created the original post?

I'm dying to read it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

ok, hang on a minute. Let me see if I can find where you posted your solution.

I might be mistaken that it was your thread asking this same question not too long ago, but it definitely was a pretty recent thread.

Regardless, I wouldn't suggest wasting your time searching for it, because regardless I'm not particularly interested in rehashing this because I'm really not convinced that you are looking for a genuine exchange of ideas.

Really, is there anything I could say that would anything in your world, short of just flat out agreeing with everything you already believe?

[Spliffdaddy]

Now I'm *for sure* going to find the thread where you state your solution.

You've weaseled quite enough.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Now I'm *for sure* going to find the thread where you state your solution.

You've weaseled quite enough.

The thread was called something along the lines of "what method of fighting terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?" On second thought, I think was crash_harddrive or somebody who created the thread, not you.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

You're right, the Palestinians have derailed the peace process. I can't believe they're unwilling to accept a peace proposal that leaves them wholly dependent on Israel for their water. Damn monsters, when will they accept their subservient posiiton to their betters? This totally justifies the indiscriminate use of violence by the IDF.

Face it, mojo, both sides are so deep in blood and so far past the line of basic human decency that there's no room left to favor one side or the other. We--you, me, the US, the EU, the UN, everyone on Earth--should just be pushing for them to get over their history, get past what their dellusions tell them God wants for them, and just learn to live in peace.

The beauty of the Israeli position is that it is very easy to understand.

They don't want to be attacked by their enemies. Period.

If keeping Israel safe was of primary importance to anyone, the readers of this post or the UN or anyone, they would think about what it takes to prevent immediate attacks and then what would be done to prevent attacks in the next 2 - 5 years and then indefinitely.

Surely the UN can understand that.

The Israelis have wisely decided if the UN and the rest of the world will do nothing to help keep Israel safe then it is up to them to use the Muslim's methods of war to assure their own safety, even though they have resisted taking this action for many years.

Anyone who wants to save the lives of the Lebanese or the Hezbollah soldiers or the Syrians or whoever, all they have to do is just prevent Israel from being attacked.

Seems easy enough to understand.

[Helmling]

But what will prevent attacks tomorrow will only cause more in 5 years. They're going to have to choose.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Surely the current course isn't getting them anywhere. Violence begetting violence, ad infinitum.

Join the chorus of voices calling for all parties to stop attacking Israel.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling

But what will prevent attacks tomorrow will only cause more in 5 years. They're going to have to choose.

1939: We must never fight the Nazis, fighting them will only make more of them.

And look how that turned out!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I finally got around to reading all of this. It's pretty entertaining, and I have put up a mojo2shrine™ in a little corner of my abode, just for you.

Here's my contribution: What is the eventual goal of our War On Terror? It has nothing to do with eradicating anything, it has to do with making ourselves, both as Americans and as citizens of the World, more secure in our daily lives. The entity we are fighting puts killing us at a higher value than preserving their own lives, and their ideaology is contagious and spreads wherever conditions are right. We may have a technological advantage, but they have an advantage both in sheer numbers and in their willingness to give up their lives for their cause.

Simply eradicating all the ones we can find will never work, since there will always be ones we can't find. And war actively generates the conditions under which this ideaology will spread. Waging war on this group guarantees that their numbers will expand, because more and more people will be willing to sactifice themselves and their children's future against percieved "aggression".

The answer, IMHO, is to eliminate the conditions under which this ideaology spreads. This may require armed conflict, as in Afghanistan, but also requires dialogue and an honest assessment of our support for various governments in the region, who are actively sowing this ideaology while taking our oil money. The comparison to Northern Ireland is apt, I think: From the founding of the Irish State until 1999, Article 2 of the Irish Constitution simply read:



Article 3 recognized that there was a partition, but until the island was made whole the laws passed by the government would only apply in the South. There was a recognition of a partition, but only a temporary one, and it was Official Irish Policy that the North was rightfully part of it's territorial bitrhright.

I imagine that a UK citizen living in Northern Ireland must have been bothered by that plain statement on the part of the Irish government. And there were likely many people who felt it was pointless to negotiate with them since their stance to never compromise was written into their constitution. But negotiations eventually happened, compromise was achieved, and aside from all the bloviating that polititians always do I think ordinary people on both sides think the compromise was worth it.

Discussions with the current group of rabble-rousers are a little more difficult, because of their penchant to value killing others over their own lives, which even the IRA was sensible enough to try and avoid. But just as there were people on both sides in Ireland and the UK who were willing to open discussions even though Official Positions made that untenable, there will be people open to negotiating in Hamas and Hezbollah and Israel and the US even though all parties Official Positions are mutually exclusive.

A good compromise is one that neither side likes but both sides live with because the alternative is worse. So the fact that mojo2 and Spliffdaddy don't like compromise is proof that maybe there's something to the idea.

Thanks for the mojoshrine™!

As far as your suggestion is concerned, it's pretty unreasonable. The Muslims will never agree to it and live by it.

Tell you what, the minute you realize they intend to conquer the world no matter what we do or don't do, let me know. And I will welcome you as my long lost comrade-in-baseball!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

But what will prevent attacks tomorrow will only cause more in 5 years. They're going to have to choose.

That's the choice that has ALWAYS faced Israel's enemies. To live in peace or to constantly attack Israel.

And like the good Muslims they are they have continued to attack and play the victim (at the same time) because it's ordered by the Koran.

Israel just wants peace and everything you see them do is dictated by their efforts to achieve peace.

If their efforts seem extreme or distorted it is only a mirror image of the forces that attack them.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Helmling

Ay, there's the rub...wherever conditions are right. A Mid-east torn by war is one that will be continually galvanized is one where conditions will always be right for these sorts of ideologues to recruit.

What we need is to change the conditions in the Middle East...how? Easy, just let what was already happening before 9/11 happen. Bin Laden is desperate because he sees that he and his were already losing the culture war as Western culture--our open, consumer lifestyle with jeans, movies, music, etc--was eating away at the values upon which his causes are based.

By galvanizing the Arab and Muslim world against us, we've played right into his hands.

Treat terrorism like the global law enforcement issue it is, and have faith that in the "culture war" the values of freedom will prevail on their own. They cannot be advanced at the point of a bayonet.

Law enforcement has never stopped trying to address the problem of terrorism since the WoT began and both the law enforcement efforts and terrorism are greater now than ever. But why are there reports of islamic jihadist terrorism activity in India and Indonesia and Germany and Italy and elsewhere? Places where there is no military action?

One of these days the truth will be made plain to all of us that the Koran's violent commandments take priority over the peaceful commandments and that jihad of all types are to be used to gain dominion over all nations and there's nothing we do or don't do that will change this.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The thread was called something along the lines of "what method of fighting terrorism would be acceptable to liberals?" On second thought, I think was crash_harddrive or somebody who created the thread, not you.

Alright, folks, take a minute to pour a cup of coffee and grab a snack. The following exchange is so utterly hilarious that I have newfound respect for besson3c.

The thread you mentioned, besson3c, had almost nothing to do with fighting terrorism - not that it matters, since you never actually answered the question, anyway.

Simey the Limey asked the following questions:

So liberals, please help me out. Does the New York Times speak for you? Do you wish to condemn their position? And most importantly, if the New York Times's universal opposition (at least while Bush is in office) to fighting terrorism does not speak for you, what methods would you find acceptable?


You were the first to reply, besson3c. And, not suprisingly, you didn't answer any of the questions. Here are the first replies you made, all lumped together into one enormous conglomeration of sidestepping and answer-dodging:

besson3c:

You have asked some difficult questions.

My opinion (as somebody you could lump in as being a liberal, although I have no particular loyalty to the party) is this:

Every action to lock things down, to become more hard core in our security, has a set of tradeoffs - both in terms of civil liberties and resource allocation (and possibly in other areas too). My problem is when the government goes too far and overboard in trying to lock everything down, and doing so in a secretive way. I don't trust any government, and am bothered with the idea of issuing a free pass, a blank check, all in the name of security and protecting us from a threat that can so easily be manipulated in its existence and/or magnitude.

I believe that there are many areas where we can not reach a level of absolute security, and certainly not so without tradeoffs. I'd be much happier if the society (and both parties) were privy to this and part of these discussions. I do not want this country to be turned into a police state where I'm pumped full of fear of my neighbors. Where does all of this stop? That is the question at the back of my mind... Are we hunting the boogeyman and calling him a terrorist, or are we actually offering security in a way that benefits - not needlessly controls the population?

The problem is, this government doesn't offer much in the way of credibility. This might be why the knee-jerk reaction of many from the left is that of FUD. I hope that we can someday move past this and have this discussion as a country, but I'm not sure what it will take at this point. I strongly believe that it is incredibly naive to just faithfully trust a government, particularly when they have given you no logical reason to do so.

Some might say that making our security methods more transparent provides the terrorists with a tactical advantage. I ask again: where does it stop? What the police do or do not do is pretty publicly accessible information - does this provide criminals with a tactical advantage? Don't forget, that the second largest terrorist attack on our soil was a civilian terrorist act, we are far from sheltered against the crazies living in our own country.

This can go back and forth: lock down police force, lock down anti-terrorism forces, but what does all of this gain us? There is no such thing as absolute security, period. The best we can do is come up with an intelligent and reasonable deterrent, and don't obsess over the possibilities of another security breach - I do not want to live in constant fear.

There are many things to be afraid of, terrorism is just one thing.


There are many times I think the reason why we haven't had an attack in a while is because the terrorists are trying to exhaust our resources, and increase the divide and level of fear among us so that our nation becomes unstable - unstable to live, work, or do business in, and unstable politically. To me, this is almost as bad as an isolated breach once in a while.



I guess to answer your question Simey, I don't really know what we should be doing. I want to start looking at these decisions from a very objective position: what will it gain us? What will we lose from this? I want to be able to do this without being accused of siding with the terrorists or being unpatriotic or any of that other sort of crap.

And you summarized your 850 word essays with this brilliant statement:

besson3c:

Until we get there, I don't really have a satisfying answer for you, I'm afraid.


I was laughing so hard at that point, I had to walk to the kitchen and get a glass of water.


But when I returned and read some more of the 8-page thread, it got even more hilarious.



besson3c:

See, this also gets complicated because when you traverse through the list of criminal acts in a systematic fashion, there are acts that I believe perhaps should be kept secretive. Money laundering is a good example.

As far as mafia/terrorist adaption, I think they can move and adapt faster than our bureaucracies can, and certainly faster than our military can. Why did Rumsfeld say that he thinks that Bin Laden is hiding on the Pakistani border (or wherever it was), and we are coming after him with our tanks and planes, so he better watch out? *This* offers them a tactical advantage. In some cases, a small and covert police-like operation is more efficient than big bureaucracies.

In short, I think that like computer hackers, the terrorists can make mistakes and learn from them quickly. It is our job to put up a secure network that can't easily be compromised, but accept that every now and then it will be compromised. Does my analogy using computer networks make sense?

Um, hell no it doesn't make any sense But that's the beauty of it.

So, Simey asked you the question again - and you replied;

That is a very leading question. I don't think the question needs to be framed in the way you have.




Then, using about 200 words, you admit you don't have an answer. Which is why Simey keeps asking you the question.

besson3c

I believe I was claiming that I don't know exactly where these boundaries should be set in fighting terrorism in general, because I lack data and the resources to formulate an opinion on where to draw the best lines here. That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on what we *shouldn't* be doing. We shouldn't be doing stuff that is not founded in a legal precedent.


So, you made a dozen posts in an effort to answer the original question about a NewYork Times article - WHICH YOU HADN'T EVEN READ!! *snort*

besson3c:

I've been avoiding the NYTimes article because I haven't read it and therefore don't have an opinion about it.


DUDE!, if you don't a have freakin opinion about it - why did you post a dozen different replies to the question? This is classic! At this point I was in awe of besson3c's ability to bullshit on new never-before-seen levels.

But wait. He's not finished. Enter LEVEL9 B.S.

besson3c:

No, I like difficult questions, and I attempted to answer his question as best as I could.

Yeah, I see.

So, the thread enters page 6, or so - and a member calls you out on NOT ever answering the question....and in a typical liberal fashion, you add him to your ignore list.

besson3c:

I held off on using the MacNN ignore list because I thought I could restrain myself from paying attention to him, but I failed. After discovering the actual MacNN/vBulletin ignore list, I found that the subtle "this user is on your ignore list" warnings have been gentle reminders that there is a reason why I'm ignoring him. You might want to join the club

but wait....besson3c answers a question!!!! (though not the question that was asked!)

besson3c:

I'm not a legal expert, but I'll say that if it is legal for the government to monitor bank records without a warrant or whatever, I'm fine with it.

YAY

Ahem. OK, I was absolutely dying at this point - so besson3c ups the ante with the most ironic statement ever written in human history...

wait for it.....

besson3c:

When is somebody going to answer the original question?

[Spliffdaddy]

So, um, besson3c, what is your solution to fighting terrorism?




(i love you, man)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So, um, besson3c, what is your solution to fighting terrorism?




(i love you, man)

What's so funny? I've repeatedly called out your supposed solutions as being highly flawed and have shot a zillion holes in them that you have yet to acknowledge.


I was very honest and forthright, there is no magic bullet. I don't have it, you don't have it. What do you want from me? Simplistic "just add water" remedies?


As for the rest of your commentary, I was under the mistaken impression that you guys wanted to have a genuine exchange of ideas. Apparently I was incredibly naive, and you guys just want to butt heads and get into internet yelling tournaments. Not interested.

If you'd like to comment on anything I've written, you are welcome to. Surprise me by demonstration you actually want to have this conversation in a productive manner.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks

1939: We must never fight the Nazis, fighting them will only make more of them.

And look how that turned out!

1939: We must not stop Hitler; he is a great leader fighting for our country.

2006: We must not stop Bush; he is a great leader fighting for our country.

It's amazing what an invalid comparison can prove, isn't it? Nazis and terrorists both kill people, and Hitler and Bush are both national leaders who start wars, but that does not mean they are alike enough to say that anything true of one is true of another.

[Spliffdaddy]

Are you being serious, besson3c? Because I'm laughing so hard that sweat is dripping off my teabag-shaped head.

I asked what your terrorism solution was - since you only seem to criticize everybody else's solutions. So you tell me you already posted your solution in another thread. I spent an hour looking for the thread - found it - and noticed it had nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked. Furthermore, you never answered the (unrelated) question in that thread, either.

I posted my findings and asked you again what your solution was.

And what the hell do you do? You criticize other people's solutions and refuse to answer the question yourself.

I have never been so right.

[SpaceMonkey]

There is no solution. This "war," just like the War on Crime and the War on Drugs (and possibly the War on Christmas), is not going to end. There are only trade-offs: what are we doing to enhance security versus protect traditional and enumerated American liberties. That's why we can't give you a "solution" as catchy as "just bomb them."

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

1939: We must not stop Hitler; he is a great leader fighting for our country.

2006: We must not stop Bush; he is a great leader fighting for our country.

It's amazing what an invalid comparison can prove, isn't it? Nazis and terrorists both kill people, and Hitler and Bush are both national leaders who start wars, but that does not mean they are alike enough to say that anything true of one is true of another.

Just shows that you're ill-informed at history. Hamas and HizbAllah both have their roots in Nazi genocidal aims, and use Nazi symbology. Iran denies any holocaust took place, and in the same breath talks about committing genocide, leave alone the letter he wrote to Germany's Merkel talking about their common Zionist problem.

Heaven forbid that the comparison be valid.

[Spliffdaddy]

This, folks, is why liberalsim is all but dead in America.